Sunday, 2 October 2011

Bush has surpassed Galileo in Western Science?

In the middle of the 18th century, Carl Linnaeus coined the term Homo Sapiens. By giving ourselves this name, we declared that the most outstanding characteristic about our species is the ability and propensity to think. At the time, having emerged from a long dark history of superstition and religious suppression, Europe was doing a lot of thinking, and had produced many momentous figures. Their critical and adventurous faculties were leading the world into a dramatically different age.
From Copernicus to Galileo, then Newton to Einstein, numerous talented thinking monkeys had used their brains to help us better understand the physical environment and ourselves. This way of thinking may not be perfect. But it was extremely useful and generally valid in everyday life, and remains very much so, just as Newtonian science. Observation, curiosity, a tenacious experimental spirit, critical and uncompromising analyses had contributed to the overwhelming success of modern science since Galileo, the effect of which we still enjoy and suffer today.
Galileo risked being barbecued alive for suggesting the earth goes around the sun because objective evidence said so. He was lucky; he only spent his last years under house arrest. But the spirit of Galileo illuminated an intellectual dimension that the Holy Fathers could no longer keep in the dark. 
911 had finally put a stop to that tradition, officially and publicly. Bush might therefore claim to have surpassed Galileo as the most significant figure in modern science. The Nobel committee, having awarded Obama a Peace Prize, might as well give Bush one in Physics.
A very well informed world of Homo sapiens which witnessed the free fall of three towers, defying known scientific understandings, continues to believe in the official story. Except a brave group of 1500 or so American scientists and engineers, most people are willing to see the sun orbiting the Earth because Washington says so. Some in the scientific community even attempt mumble jumble rationalisations to justify the obviously impossible. Well, many of the brightest men did the same in Galileo’s days, but they had the excuse of not yet having called themselves Homo sapiens.
The scientific (or unscientific) queries surrounding 911 are plain and basic. I will not repeat the numerous objective and irrefutable arguments already presented by others. Those who are interested can do their own research. is by far the best starting point. 
I wish to put forward a few common sense questions for those who don’t wish to be bothered by scientific principles:
1. The first two towers collapsed by free fall, ostensibly due to explosions caused by the airplanes, with remarkable symmetry, leaving the neighbours fortuitously intact. Can the collapse be simulated in an experiment? This is a significant discovery for engineering because future demolition can be made MUCH cheaper (hey, just a couple tanks of airplane fuel splashed all over the place and wham!) if we can understand and master this phenomena. 
Is it being studied in any of the civil engineering labs around the world? Why are we ignoring this opportunity of a lifetime to come up with a new cheap way of controlled demolition that no longer requires painstaking “controlling”?
2. Perhaps it was a freak accident, although TWO freak accidents happening at the same time could itself rewrite statistics and probability. Never mind. 
But there was a third building! Building 7 (the 3rd tower that also collapsed by free fall, something that 85% of Americans are no longer aware of because the media are quiet about it in the spirit of Orwellian Minitrue) was not hit by a plane. It caught fire, somehow, and fainted. It collapsed in the same fashion, by free fall.
The Holy See — sorry, correction, Washington — said it collapsed due to office fire. Well, no towering inferno has ever fallen like this in our entire history. Is anyone in the universities curious enough to analyse this unprecedented structural behaviour with significant implications? 
3. Finally, forget Newtonian science. It might have died. Forget Einstein. We are now in the Age of Bushian science. What about social regulations, something that Bush would have nothing against? 
Three landmark grade skyscrapers in New York collapsed in an apparently impossible manner ten years ago. Some said it was due to a peculiar structural design fault. Has the building code been revised since? Were the designers sued in litigious America? What about other buildings designed and built on similar principles? If they caught fire like WTC Building 7 — a definitely possibility — will they collapse likewise? Has anything been done to safeguard or reinforce these structures to prevent recurrence? You’re talking about possibly saving lives — American lives!
So far, no other building elsewhere in the world has collapsed in a free fall fashion due to “office fire” — the official reason. Does that mean American design and engineering should not be responsibly exported until they have a better idea (expressed in accordance with the fact-seeking conventions of Western science) why Building 7 collapsed?
Western science is much more than a set of theorems and principles. It’s a way of objective thinking that refuses to compromise. This intellectual approach had emerged from a long struggle against the deadly drip of the Church, but can it survive the sophisticated strangling of the modern Church and its powerful propaganda machine? If not, isn’t Bush the latest defining figure in Western science, possibly surpassing Galileo, Newton, and Einstein in a reverse sense?

Published 2 October 2011 on Guo Du Blog

No comments: